Unprecedented, Mr. President? What exactly do you think the Supreme Court is there to do, other than to serve as a check and balance to the other branches of government? I hate to break it to you, but Marbury v. Madison kinda sorta happened 209 years ago. You know, that pesky piece of history otherwise known as the first time the Supreme Court declared a law “unconstitutional.” It established “Judicial Review.” Oh by the way, didn’t you attend Harvard Law, enjoy a stint as editor of the Harvard Law Review, and later on teach law at the University of Chicago? Were you sick the day that class was taught?

Aside from your gross lack of historical knowledge, are you or are you not insinuating that as long as Congress (in this case, YOUR party) passes something, it is a) automatically Constitutional, and b) challenging it in the Supreme Court automatically constitutes judicial activism on the part of “unelected officials.”

So, what are you saying, Mr. President? Call me crazy, but it appears before my young eyes that you’ve attempted to usurp the role of the courts by declaring that this law is unquestionably constitutional and should not be challenged; you’ve questioned the validity of the Supreme Court by insinuating that they are nothing more than a cluster of unelected officials playing political chess on high; and insinuated that Congress’ vote (rather, a nonpartisan, shove-it-down-our-throats-kicking-and-screaming vote on a piece of legislation an overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t want) should never be questioned. . . all in the matter of a few words.

You’re certainly one to talk about unelected officials. In three years you’ve managed to shove quite a few unelected officials (“czars,” if you will) into more nooks and crannies of your crony administration than most presidents ever do; than again- you’re not most presidents.

You chide conservatives for complaining about judicial activism while supporting the striking down of this bill? We’ll suspend reality for a moment and assume that your premise is correct; that is, that the Supreme Court’s potential declaration that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional is “judicial activism.” Under than same light, why then does Justice Elena Kagen get a pass? Does her participation in the planning of the defense of this horrid law prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court, and then her refusal to recuse herself from this case, not constitute ACTIVISM personified?

I suppose we should not be surprised at any of the aforementioned, because when a man makes statements like the following, it can only be assumed he’s got nothing but disdain for the very document he took an oath to uphold:

Of course in this particular case he was responding to a question about the racial situation at the time of the Constitution’s writing, but when asked to further explain these “flaws,” he does not go into detail. Regardless, his comments on his frustrations with the court system and the separation of powers make his rigid, far left ideology glaringly obvious:

No wonder he had such scathing words for the Supreme Court and the role they play in deciding the constitutionality of legislative ventures. Me thinks (as do some of America’s most trusted voices in conservative radio) that someone (gasp) leaked the Supreme Court’s decision to the president, and Mr. President ain’t none too pleased. You see, the Supreme Court already took a preliminary vote on the Health Care Law after the arguments came to a close, but this decision is not to be released to the public until June, when the opinions have been written. Incidentally, a justice could technically change his or her vote when the final opinion is decided. I’d hate to be that one swing vote justice right now.

You see, all this “checks and balances” junk is just one of many roadblocks that the Founders so wisely put in place to guard against men just exactly like Barack Obama himself. This doesn’t sit well with a man who, by every indication, would gladly take all the reins and have at it, completely unleashed and unchecked.